PDA

View Full Version : 4e excerpt - Archons



ShadowSiege
2008-05-21, 02:04 AM
Original Article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080521a)

The excerpt for those that can't read the original:
Excerpts: Archons
4th Edition Monster Manual

In past previews, we showed you to 4th Edition’s angels. This time, R&D’s Dave Noonan introduces the archons—extraplanar creatures in the employ of the primordials.

We designed archons to serve a parallel function to the angels: smart, organized extraplanar monsters that work for the movers and shakers beyond the world. In the case of the archons, they work for the primordials. Their backstory describes them as an important step at the dawn of time in the arms race between the deities and the primordials. When the primordials saw armies of angels, they developed an army of their own: elementals-turned-soldiers called archons, each invested with the power of a specific element.

The battle between the primordials and the deities is over—at least for the time being. But the archons remain in the service of great powers that reside within the Elemental Chaos: Efreeti pashas, primordial nagas, salamander lords, and not a few demon princes. They’re also used as guardians at larger githzerai monasteries. Most remain amid the Elemental Chaos, but over the centuries many have found their way to the world, where they roam free or are bound to primordial cults, powerful spellcasters, liches, and other individuals and groups that typically bind elementals to service.

It’s also obvious that the Monster Manual only scratches the surface of available archons. We give you three fire archons (at levels 12, 19, and 20) and three ice archons (at levels 16, 19, and 20). But the Elemental Chaos is vast, and fire and ice are only two of the many forms it takes. Now that we’ve (thankfully!) separated the word “elemental” in the D&D sense from the classical Greek elements of earth, fire, air, and water, there’s plenty of room for archons of your own design. (And I imagine you’ll see more archons from us, too.)
How to Use Archons in Your Game

Archons are useful because of their single-mindedness. They’re intelligent, but they have no culture or society of their own. They’re intentionally disconnected from their roots so that every big bad evil guy can have archons in his employ—probably acquired in some dark ritual or bargain with the sinister forces from the Abyss or wider Elemental Chaos. Likewise, every soon-to-be-disturbed tomb or secret fortress can have archon guardians; they don’t age and they don’t mind waiting centuries for interlopers (read: the PCs) to come along.

Archons share some similarities with elementals, but two important differences will often point you toward one or the other when you’re designing a D&D adventure. First, archons are a lot smarter than elementals, so they’re a good choice when you want social interaction with the PCs or a monster that shows more than ordinary cunning during a combat encounter. Second, archons are focused on a single damage type, while elementals generally display aspects of multiple elements and damage types. Archons are thus good when you want to really emphasize a single element, whether you’re mixing them with other monsters that share that damage type or deliberately choosing complementary monsters.
--Dave Noonan

Archons are militaristic creatures native to the Elemental Chaos. Vaguely humanoid in form, they serve powerful primordial entities as well as various elemental lords and princelings.

Archons trace back to an ancient time when the world had hardly been formed, when primordial beings battled the gods for control of creation. In this cataclysmic conflict, the deities marshaled armies of angels and cadres of exarchs, and though the primordials could call forth titanic beasts and giants, they could not muster a true military to face their enemies until they found the means by which elemental creatures could be reshaped and hammered into soldiers. The warriors formed through this process were the first archons.

*Download the Archons PDF (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Archons.zip)


Be sure to return Friday for a look at swarms!


From the PDF:
ICE ARCHON HAILSCOURGE
This archon hurls shards of ice and besieges foes with storms of fist-sized hailstones.

Description
The hailscourge wears ice armor but carries no weapons. It conjures blades of ice similar in shape to shuriken and hurls them at distant enemies.

Ice Archon Hailscourge Level 16 Artillery
Medium elemental humanoid (cold) XP 1,400

Initiative +11 Senses Perception +10
HP 120; Bloodied 60
AC 30; Fortitude 28, Reflex 27, Will 26
Immune disease, poison; Resist 20 cold
Speed 6 (ice walk)

Slam (standard; at-will) Cold
+19 vs. AC; 1d6 + 4 cold damage.

Ice Shuriken (standard; at-will) Cold
Ranged 6/12; +21 vs. AC; 1d6 + 4 damage plus 1d6 cold damage.

Double Attack (standard; at-will) Cold
The ice archon hailscourge makes two ice shuriken attacks.

Hail Storm (standard; recharge 5, 6 ) Cold
Area burst 1, 2, 3, or 4 within 20; +21 vs. AC; 2d8 + 4 cold damage.
Miss: Half damage.
The ice archon hailscourge determines the exact burst radius of the hail storm.

Frost Shield (immediate interrupt, when attacked by a ranged, a
close, or an area attack; encounter) Cold
The ice archon hailscourge gains resist 20 to all damage against the triggering attack.

Alignment Chaotic evil Languages Primordial
Str 18 (+12) Dex 16 (+11) Wis 14 (+10)
Con 18 (+12) Int 14 (+10) Cha 15 (+10)

Equipment plate armor

Ice Archon Hailscourge Tactics
The ice archon hailscourge unleashes its hail storm as often as it can, reducing the storm’s radius as needed to avoid harming its allies. While it waits for this power to recharge, it hurls ice shuriken at its enemies.

Hailscourge Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful
Arcana check.
DC 20: A hailscourge prefers ranged combat over melee combat. Hailscourges serve as artillery in elemental armies.
DC 25: The ice archon hailscourge pummels its enemies with fist-sized chunks of ice that rain down from above. It can also conjure and hurl jagged shards of ice resembling shuriken.


ICE ARCHON RIMEHAMMER
Ice archon rimehammers make fine enforcers and are often used as bodyguards by powerful elemental beings. They are not blindingly loyal, however, and they abandon their masters if treated poorly.

Ice Archon Rimehammer Level 19 Soldier
Medium elemental humanoid (cold) XP 2,400
Initiative +15 Senses Perception +12
Icy Ground (Cold) aura 1; enemies treat the area within the aura as difficult terrain.
HP 185; Bloodied 92
AC 35; Fortitude 35, Reflex 32, Will 31
Immune disease, poison; Resist 30 cold
Speed 6 (ice walk)

Maul (standard; at-will) Cold, Weapon
+25 vs. AC; 2d6 + 7 damage plus 1d6 cold damage, and the target is slowed (save ends). Against a slowed target, the rimehammer deals an extra 2d6 cold damage.

Alignment Chaotic evil Languages Primordial
Str 24 (+16) Dex 18 (+13) Wis 16 (+12)
Con 25 (+16) Int 14 (+11) Cha 15 (+11)

Equipment plate armor, maul

Ice Archon Rimehammer Tactics
This archon uses its icy ground aura to hinder foes that are trying to flank it. It otherwise engages in melee, using its maul to slow enemies and the icy ground to hinder their movement even further.

Rimehammer Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful
Arcana check.
DC 20: The ice archon rimehammer takes its name from the icy maul it wields. The weapon is so numbingly cold that those it strikes are barely able to walk.
DC 25: These archons are usually found in the service of frost giants, ice archon frostshapers, and similar creatures. However, they have been known to serve other creatures with ties to the Elemental Chaos, including such unlikely masters as efreets and fire giants.

There they are. Created by the primordials to face off against the angels of the gods, the archons. Being intelligent and monoelemental, they have a different niche than elementals, which now seem to mix elements judging from the clip above.

Random thoughts:
-Sweet hammer for loot from the rimefire.
-I'm leery of the Chaotic Evil alignment, as they don't seem to be such from the description (at least not in the standard demonic fashion).
-I want to make a sentai team of archons. Ice, Wind, Fire, and Earth (Heart isn't invited (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway) By their powers combined... you get a TPK.

The Rose Dragon
2008-05-21, 02:11 AM
Man, unless Guardinals turn out to be some sort of always good guys, EE is gonna saw WotC's buttocks off.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-21, 03:03 AM
WotC could give EE the best **** ever ****** and he would still ***** it was ****ing *********itude.

This comedic bleeping of totally harmless words has been brought to you by:
Torgo's Executive Powder.

I'm actually hoping to see guardinals just get the axe. Or at least axe Avorals. They look silly. Though they might get thrown under the celestials category (or was that the new name for Aasimar? Eh, I never really took the time to learn the good planar races. The evil outsiders were always more interesting. Even the inevitables, modrons and slaad were more interesting.

I'm still concerned regarding the chaotic evil alignment tag of the archons though. Perhaps a leftover of their creation by the primordials, but it's something I'm going to have to wait and see in regards to the fluff surrounding it, and change it if I see the need.

Rutee
2008-05-21, 03:04 AM
The Primordials are really really huge elementals? I seem to have forgotten..

ShadowSiege
2008-05-21, 03:14 AM
The Primordials are really really huge elementals? I seem to have forgotten..

Yeah, something like that. The Primordials were/are elementals on par with the gods, that created the world in a state of eternal chaos until they were defeated by the gods.

I can't think of any direct comparisons, but WoW's Elemental Lords are close in concept but nowhere near as powerful (ZOMG 4e = MOREPIGS :P). Other influences would be Greek titans and uh... blast my creation stories catalog seems to be lacking or those are the two closest I can come up with.

Edit: http://www.wowwiki.com/Elemental_Lord has more on Warcraft's Elemental Lords. In keeping with my prior statement, the Elemental Lords were actually not as powerful as gods/titans, being a tier below them on the power scale. Remove their fealty to the Old Ones (yay Cosmic Horrors!) and you're pretty close to 4e's primordials.

Rutee
2008-05-21, 03:45 AM
Oh, I've read WoWiki's lore bit exhaustively, and had privately drawn that comparison. Long as I'm on the right page here.

JBento
2008-05-21, 04:36 AM
I hate to be the 4E attacker here, because so far stuff has seemed pretty nifty so far (though final judgement is reserved for when I've launched by munchkin-neuron salvos against the books), even more so because it's taking a page of EE's book...

I'm seeing a prevalence, nay, an utter domination of Chaotic Evil alignments in anything from the MM. We don't have the alignment descriptions yet, but if CE is going to be the apocalyptical evil, it would appear that EVERYTHING is a sheer force of destruction. Since with PoL setting, you have tiny islands of civilization surrounded by MM-filled wilderness, how come there is still a setting in existence?

Again, this requires perusal of the MM before a final judgement (namely, how much of MM content is CE - are the previews a representative sample, or is WotC giving us the biggest badasses?), and I've killed 3.5 alignment system already so I suppose it won't be any trouble doing the same to the new guy.

Also, Ice Archons can serve stuff like fire giants? FIRE giants? Won't they, y'know, melt?

Rutee
2008-05-21, 04:38 AM
(namely, how much of MM content is CE - are the previews a representative sample, or is WotC giving us the biggest badasses?)
The latter is most probable; Remember that the purpose of a preview is to generate interest, so you wanna use what, to you, seems like it would appeal to the most players, rather then a good look at all enemies of all levels.

JBento
2008-05-21, 04:43 AM
The latter is most probable; Remember that the purpose of a preview is to generate interest, so you wanna use what, to you, seems like it would appeal to the most players, rather then a good look at all enemies of all levels.

One can but hope... hope is the last thing to die after all (3.5 Diplomacy and alignment systems being the 1st ex aequo (sp?))

Sebastian
2008-05-21, 05:37 AM
Also, Ice Archons can serve stuff like fire giants? FIRE giants? Won't they, y'know, melt?

well, yes, but not particolary, if you notice they don't have fire vulnerability, actually they don't even have cold resistance, either the cold part of the elemental chaos is warmer then I thought or elemental archons wear coats while in it. :)

But, wait, this is 4e, the archons probably have a ritual or something that give them the ability to survive in there. :smallwink:

At the moment I think Angels with their immunities and elemental attacks are better elemental monsters than these guys. :D

But seriously, maybe it is in the cold subtype, I'd like to know more about those, we still know almost nothing about them and there are a lot of 4e oddities that could just be covered by these keywords, like demon falling asleep, or poisoned undeads.

Muyten
2008-05-21, 05:50 AM
well, yes, but not particolary, if you notice they don't have fire vulnerability, actually they don't even have cold resistance, either the cold part of the elemental chaos is warmer then I thought or elemental archons wear coats while in it. :)


Actually they do have cold resistance it says right there in the stats.

Morty
2008-05-21, 05:56 AM
So, Archons are big, elemental-related humanoid outsiders used as elemental lords and dieties as brute force. Not bad as far as 4ed fluff goes, and this Gods vs. Primordials stuff is actually quite interesting even if unoriginal(but then, nothing's original anymore).
But why are they CE? One might think that elemental soldiers who serve practically anyone would be perfectly Unaligned.

Sebastian
2008-05-21, 06:56 AM
Actually they do have cold resistance it says right there in the stats.

D'oh!!!:smallredface: I can't believe I've missed it. nevermind then.

KIDS
2008-05-21, 07:03 AM
The stats look good, nothing to comment on them before I play the game...

... but this part slightly disturbs me:

They’re intelligent, but they have no culture or society of their own. They’re intentionally disconnected from their roots so that every big bad evil guy can have archons in his employ—probably acquired in some dark ritual or bargain with the sinister forces from the Abyss or wider Elemental Chaos.

I mean, I probably would have used them in this way exactly, but I would really like WotC to put in some starting, mutable fluff rather than just this paragraph about soldiers....

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 07:04 AM
Yes, the Primordials are taken from the Greek Titans.

So instead of an epic blood war... we now have an epic Gods vs Primodial Elementals war. :smallsmile:

Oslecamo
2008-05-21, 07:15 AM
Even better!

We have epic gods VS NINJA SHURIKEN THROWING ELEMENTALS!:smallbiggrin:

Now how cool is that? Wotc surely suprised me with this one.:smalltongue:

puppyavenger
2008-05-21, 07:52 AM
While, I still hate the new alignments, but the fluff actualy looks vaugly intresting. However, why do they seems to want to make every name ascosiated with good in 3.5 put on an evil monster?

The Rose Dragon
2008-05-21, 07:54 AM
Even better!

We have epic gods VS NINJA SHURIKEN THROWING ELEMENTALS!:smallbiggrin:

Now how cool is that? Wotc surely suprised me with this one.:smalltongue:

We need ninja shuriken throwing elementals with magic hands that shoot bees. Because no matter who you are, the moment you get compared to a magic hand that shoots bees, you're going to [...] lose.

puppyavenger
2008-05-21, 07:56 AM
We need ninja shuriken throwing elementals with magic hands that shoot bees. Because no matter who you are, the moment you get compared to a magic hand that shoots bees, you're going to [...] lose.

Hurray for zero puntuaction refrenses:smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo
2008-05-21, 08:03 AM
While, I still hate the new alignments, but the fluff actualy looks vaugly intresting. However, why do they seems to want to make every name ascosiated with good in 3.5 put on an evil monster?

Duh. So the players can kill everything and anything whitout remorse.

Like EE said, monster's primary goal in 4e is to get killed by the party. So no noncombat abilities, and no alignment that can get in the way out of the party.

Thus, we have several species(demons, bugbears, orcs, kobolds, formians) that are inherently evil and some other races(angels) that work as mercenaries for whoever pays them.

Any "good monster" was probably deemed as a waste of space.

Of course, there's always the Drizzit aproach. The renegade group of demons who likes to save puppies and gives safe candy to children, or the honorable orcs who just want to be free.

JBento
2008-05-21, 08:08 AM
Thus, we have several species(demons, bugbears, orcs, kobolds, formians, humans) that are inherently evil and some other races(angels, adventurers) that work as mercenaries for whoever pays them.


There. Completed it for you :smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo
2008-05-21, 08:12 AM
Wait, if humans are evil, why do the adventurers are alwawys trying to save them?

Or do you meant that regular humans are the evil mastermind and adventurers are their tools to spread the human emperium over all lands, obliterating the other races, crushing the natural forces and become the unquestionable ruling force of the planet?

Jarlax
2008-05-21, 08:13 AM
So instead of an epic blood war... we now have an epic Gods vs Primodial Elementals war. :smallsmile:

i think you will find the blood war alive and well within the pages of the DMG and manual of the planes, its just too good an element to throw away.

on the topic of alignment, i think you will find the archons will be similarly aligned in 4e as the primordials themselves. while they will work for anyone just like any race their default alignment is that of their race in general. in the same way the fiendish assistance may be bought, bartered or bound by anyone powerful enough.

bosssmiley
2008-05-21, 08:29 AM
Yes, the Primordials are taken from the Greek Titans.

So instead of an epic blood war... we now have an epic Gods vs Primodial Elementals war. :smallsmile:

Although I sneered them at first the concept of Archons as elemental shock troopers and the idea of an elemental titans vs. celestial gods War in the Heavens have gradually grown on me. Makes a nice change from the mish-mash of elder elementals, elemental princes, elemental Elder Evils, elemental princes of evil (et blah), oh, and the various flavours of genie that we had before.

Moar liek this plox.

puppyavenger
2008-05-21, 08:40 AM
i think you will find the blood war alive and well within the pages of the DMG and manual of the planes, its just too good an element to throw away.

on the topic of alignment, i think you will find the archons will be similarly aligned in 4e as the primordials themselves. while they will work for anyone just like any race their default alignment is that of their race in general. in the same way the fiendish assistance may be bought, bartered or bound by anyone powerful enough.

so why are the elemental creatures who created the world CE?

Green Bean
2008-05-21, 09:00 AM
so why are the elemental creatures who created the world CE?

Why wouldn't they be? The world the Primordials created was just seething elemental chaos. It was the Gods who came along and made the whole thing somewhat livable.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 09:09 AM
This archons are nifty indeed. While the short fluff is kinda irritating, my first high level adventure is TOTALLY going to have an Ice Archon powered minigun. Really, the myriad of combat possibilities is good enough to supplant the fluff.

Jarlax
2008-05-21, 09:27 AM
so why are the elemental creatures who created the world CE?

because they are creatures that represent the elemental chaos. this defines their chaotic nature, the fact that they are the opposing force to the deities is what makes them evil. chutthulu would have been right at home as the shadow or death primordial(remembering that the concept of "elements" has changed in 4e to be broader than the basic earth, fire, wind and water).

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-21, 09:48 AM
I like it, actually.

The thing to remember on the alignment front is that CE things are easier to deal with than LE. They've said as much with the demon/devil thing: if you want something to go "BLARGH RIP TEAR KILL," you want CE; if you want "I'm subtle, mwahahahahahahahahaaaaa" you want LE.

I do think having the race of We Don't Care creatures as CE is a bit weird...

The Rose Dragon
2008-05-21, 09:52 AM
...if you want "I'm subtle, mwahahahahahahahahaaaaa" you want LE.

That would lose all subtlety right there, though.

wodan46
2008-05-21, 10:06 AM
Archons don't sound very chaotic.

They are "soldiers", "single-minded", "intelligent" "archon guardians" "don’t mind waiting centuries for interlopers". Sounds lawful to me. Then again, they removed lawful evil....

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-21, 10:17 AM
What are Devils, then?

puppyavenger
2008-05-21, 10:23 AM
What are Devils, then?

Evil, yes Evl. The alginments are LG, G, E and Ce, in an increasing scale of evil

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-21, 10:25 AM
Evil, yes Evl. The alginments are LG, G, E and Ce, in an increasing scale of evil


Insert rant here.

The Rose Dragon
2008-05-21, 10:27 AM
What?

We can't have chaotic good? Or lawful evil? You have to be evil to be chaotic?

Insert the copy of the above rant here.

wodan46
2008-05-21, 10:30 AM
Lawful Evil and Evil are shoved into 1 category, as is Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Can you explain a meaningful and/or mechanical difference between either of those pairs that justified them being seperate? How different would a character really act?

Tingel
2008-05-21, 10:34 AM
The alginments are LG, G, E and Ce, in an increasing scale of evil
Where do you get that last part from? I haven't read anything so far that suggested an increasing scale of evil/decreasing scale of goodness over all five alignments.

The way I perceived it, LG is not better than G, nor is CE more evil than E. LG and CE are just different flavors of the same moral quality (Good and Evil, respectively).

But that's just how I understood it. Maybe you are right and LG will indeed be portrayed as inherently better than "mere" Good. In any case, I am sure that what counts as "Lawful" and "Chaotic" will differ slightly from the previous edition, and as such people shouldn't judge the new alignments based on old definitions of the terms.

Charity
2008-05-21, 10:40 AM
From all accounts the new alignment is a quincunx (cross shape) and not a scalar line of any sort.
Personally I'd have prefered they do away with the alignmentosaurous altogeather.

Moak
2008-05-21, 11:16 AM
Why wouldn't they be? The world the Primordials created was just seething elemental chaos.

I don't know why..but I like this. A lot.

It recall to me the Slayers cosmology,with my beloved Lord of Nightmares,who isn't good...he(she?) is simply,the Sea of Chaos...

Vortling
2008-05-21, 11:23 AM
It's nice that they finally put some tactical information in the lore checks instead of the generally useless fluff we've been seeing in the monster previews.

Trog
2008-05-21, 11:57 AM
From all accounts the new alignment is a quincunx (cross shape) and not a scalar line of any sort.
Really? Do you have a source for this? Or, if not, a spiffy funny image to reply with mayhap? :smalltongue:

Morty
2008-05-21, 12:05 PM
Personally I'd have prefered they do away with the alignmentosaurous altogeather.

This would deny players the right to barge in and kill people because they have Evil label swapped on. So chances were low from the start.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 12:06 PM
I suppose my biggest problem with the article is that there will only be Fire and Ice archons in the MM... but there "will be more to come" ...

I want my Necrotic Archon and a Poison Archon!

Indon
2008-05-21, 12:11 PM
New Archon flavors since "Element" was divorced from the classical elements:

Mercury.
Uranium.
Ununbium (minion only).
Gold (have the body evaporate after death for extra fun).

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-21, 12:23 PM
Sherlock Holmes Archon.

It's elemental, my dear swordmage. :smallsigh:

Anyway, not to bring down the wrath of anyone and everyone here, but this archon-alignment thing just makes me facepalm.jpg at the sheer clumsy oaf-handedness of the WotC writers.

Oh, they're soldiers of the elements, are they, who are fiercely loyal to any master they belong to?

Sound just perfect for Chaotic Evil, then!

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 12:26 PM
I think the alignments are going to mean something different in 4e... the CE we once knew is gone for this new definition that really means something else entirely :smalltongue:

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-21, 12:27 PM
I think the alignments are going to mean something different in 4e... the CE we once knew is gone for this new definition that really means something else entirely :smalltongue:

So CE is the new TN? Words cannot express how wrong that, and the implications of that, are.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 12:29 PM
Maybe "Chaotic" means prone to cause chaos instead of "goes against the grain", "free spirit", "don't take no s--- from nobody."

Tingel
2008-05-21, 12:38 PM
So CE is the new TN? Words cannot express how wrong that, and the implications of that, are.
That's not what Sam said, and you know that. What Sam meant is that "Chaotic" might now mean "aligned to the primordial Chaos" (among other things) instead of "individualistic, freedom-loving, anti-authoritarian".



From all accounts the new alignment is a quincunx (cross shape) and not a scalar line of any sort.
I doubt that. A quincrux would place LG as close to E as to G, which is counter-intuitive.
I'd rather expect something like this:
http://www.iscalio.com/misc/alignment.png
Good is on the left side, evil is on the right side. LG and CE are as far apart as possible, and yet LG isn't any more (or less) "good" than G, and the same applies to CE and E.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-21, 12:42 PM
That's not what Sam said, and you know that. What Sam meant is that "Chaotic" might now mean "aligned to the primordial Chaos" (among other things) instead of "individualistic, freedom-loving, anti-authoritarian".

Well, colour me surprised, but I thought that ethical and moral alignment would be based on, y'know, ethical and moral standpoint. If it now means 'comes from the Primordial Chaos', which doesn't exactly seem inclined to either kill or pet orphans, then that's fine, but I'd rather WotC didn't say that it was an alignment, since they don't use it that way. The word that they use for that meaning is 'allegiance', from D20 modern.

Charity
2008-05-21, 12:48 PM
Really? Do you have a source for this? Or, if not, a spiffy funny image to reply with mayhap? :smalltongue:

I don't have any kind of official source, just what I have read round abouts
Summed up best by

It's not a track, it's a quincunx. Picture Unaligned in the middle--you don't care strongly enough about the ideological concepts of "good" or "evil" to pick a side. That doesn't mean you're neutral or apathetic necessarily, just that you don't care to align yourself with either "faction," if you will.

To the right are two branches: Good and Lawful Good. Both are allied with the ideological concept of "good," but approach it through different avenues. Neither one is "more good" or "less good" than the other, both are equally "good."

To the left are the same two branches leading to Evil and Chaotic Evil. Same definitions as above, just reversed.

Highlighted new favourite word for the week.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/graphic1/tilings/r-frac1.gif
Alignment its sort of like that...

Tingel
2008-05-21, 12:51 PM
Well, colour me surprised, but I thought that ethical and moral alignment would be based on, y'know, ethical and moral standpoint. If it now means 'comes from the Primordial Chaos', which doesn't exactly seem inclined to either kill or pet orphans, then that's fine, but I'd rather WotC didn't say that it was an alignment, since they don't use it that way. The word that they use for that meaning is 'allegiance', from D20 modern.
I didn't say that Chaotic does mean that, I said it might, trying to explain where Sam was coming from after you deliberately misconstrued his point as saying "Chaotic Evil is the new True Neutral".

I don't find it that unlikely however that Alignment now has one strong moral axis (Good - Unaligned - Evil), and that both extremes come in two different flavors. Good and Evil means what it always did, while Law and Chaos have new meanings. For example, "Chaotic" could mean "of destructive intent, antagonistic to the cosmic status quo" while "Lawful" could mean "sworn to uphold the cosmic order of creation". That's just a random example, but it shows that making the Archons "chaotic" is not necessarily nonsensical.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 12:52 PM
I didn't say that Chaotic does mean that, I said it might, trying to explain where Sam was coming from after you deliberately misconstrued his point as saying "Chaotic Evil is the new True Neutral".

I don't find it that unlikely however that Alignment now has one strong moral axis (Good - Unaligned - Evil), and that both extremes come in two different flavors. Good and Evil means what it ever did, while Law and Chaos have new meanings. For example, "Chaotic" could mean "of destructive intent, antagonistic to the cosmic status quo" while "Lawful" could mean "sworn to uphold the cosmic order of creation". That's just a random example, but it shows that making the Archons "chaotic" is not necessarily nonsensical.


I'm glad at least one person understood what I was trying to say... cause I wasnt even sure if I did... :smallbiggrin:

Krrth
2008-05-21, 12:54 PM
I'm glad at least one person understood what I was trying to say... cause I wasnt even sure if I did... :smallbiggrin:

Kinda of like in the Elric saga? Where Law and Chaos had nothing to do with good and evil?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 12:57 PM
Kinda of like in the Elric saga? Where Law and Chaos had nothing to do with good and evil?

I'm not familiar with the series.. but after reading about it a little on wikipedia, I kinda want to read it. :smallbiggrin:

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-21, 01:00 PM
I didn't say that Chaotic does mean that, I said it might, trying to explain where Sam was coming from after you deliberately misconstrued his point as saying "Chaotic Evil is the new True Neutral".

I don't find it that unlikely however that Alignment now has one strong moral axis (Good - Unaligned - Evil), and that both extremes come in two different flavors. Good and Evil means what it always did, while Law and Chaos have new meanings. For example, "Chaotic" could mean "of destructive intent, antagonistic to the cosmic status quo" while "Lawful" could mean "sworn to uphold the cosmic order of creation". That's just a random example, but it shows that making the Archons "chaotic" is not necessarily nonsensical.

I love the 'deliberately misconstrued' angle you've got going here. Keep up with it.

Inyssius Tor
2008-05-21, 01:01 PM
I'll post some of the better thoughts from ENworld's nine-page thread, since I'm all out of creativity for the week...

Well, from what I read it seems this is the basis of the five alignments, now that I have seenseveral sources and had a bit of time to think:

LG: Friend that you can trust to have your back
G: Friend
U: Stranger who can be friend or enemy, depending on what you pay the DM
E: Enemy
CE: Enemy that you can't get out of fighting

Very easy to play. Perhaps not very imaginative, but still...
This. [snip!]

In typing this, though, I have thought of one way in which this could all work out. We essentially have two types of evil that differ by virtue of one kind (Evil) recognizing that the multiverse is where they keep their stuff, so it might be inconvenient to end it. If we define the difference between the two kinds of good based on what kind of evil they find most threatening, it makes some sense. Both recognize that any evil is bad (gosh, that sounds dumb), but LG looks at Evil and says, "Well, at least the universe will continue to exist if they win. It'd suck, but we could recover, eventually." Meanwhile, Good says, "CE has such a huge task, they're unlikely to ever actually win, or we'll get notice. Let's concentrate on making the universe a better place. We might actually make some headway, there."

So, a functional definition of the alignments that I actually like:

CE: The universe sucks and violates our sensibilities. It needs to be destroyed. We'll figure out what happens later, later.

Evil: I kinda like being here. In fact, I like it so much, I want to own it all.

LG: There are some beings crazy enough to nuke us all. Why don't we do something about it? Yeah, yeah. Freedom, liberty, prosperity, happiness. Those are nice and we support them, but they really don't mean squat if you ain't here to enjoy them.

Good: We have to ensure that what we're fighting to protect remains something worth protecting. Let us know when you find that cache of weapons of mass destruction. Until then, we're going to work on the economy and civil rights.

Unaligned: You say there's a trans-planar, philosophic war for our survival and free will, huh? Have fun with that. Myself, I think I'm going to go out and loot some dead guys (or loot some orcs I make dead). But, while you're up, I think Bob the smith cheated me on the horse shoes he sold me. Could you look into that, oh moral compass?

If that is the new alignment system in a nutshell, sign me up. I likee. If they just couldn't tell the difference between NG and CG or LE and NE, so they axed 'em, well... I'm unimpressed (and not saying anything else, since I couldn't say anything nice -- or even not mean).

Trog
2008-05-21, 01:03 PM
Quincunx eh? Looks like a plus to me. :smallwink:

Hmm... I wonder...


Lawful Good
(Astral Sea)
|
Good ----- Unaligned ----- Evil
(Feywild) (Prime Material) (Shadowfel)
|
Chaotic Evil
(Elemental Chaos)

The great wheel is dead... long live... er... the... uh... not so great wheel? :smallconfused:

Charity
2008-05-21, 01:10 PM
http://i24.tinypic.com/2uii5h3.jpg
just for you Trog

Thats pretty much how I see it a cross... stupid alignmentosaur

Krrth
2008-05-21, 01:12 PM
I'm not familiar with the series.. but after reading about it a little on wikipedia, I kinda want to read it. :smallbiggrin:
Well, I don't know if wiki got into it, but if they didn't: Law is order. Taken to extreme, NOTHING changes. Perfect stasis, forever. Chaos is nothing but change. Taken to extreme, nothing is permenant everything changes into something else. Mutations occur constantly.

Draz74
2008-05-21, 01:12 PM
Quincunx eh? Looks like a plus to me. :smallwink:
*groan*


Hmm... I wonder...


Lawful Good
(Astral Sea)
|
Good ----- Unaligned ----- Evil
(Feywild) (Prime Material) (Shadowfel)
|
Chaotic Evil
(Elemental Chaos)

The great wheel is dead... long live... er... the... uh... not so great wheel? :smallconfused:
I doubt it. The Feywild seems mostly ruled by evil Death Giants (Fomorians), and the Astral Sea is, among other things, where Hell is located.

Leliel
2008-05-21, 01:12 PM
Also, Ice Archons can serve stuff like fire giants? FIRE giants? Won't they, y'know, melt?

Actually, no. You see, originally, the ice Archons may have been fire giants.

It's an aspect of their creation process: Archons are born in forges, which provide the necessary armor for their creation. Once made, this armor is then bound to an elemetal of any type (including fire-types), which changes the elemental into a form that the armor was built for, such as ice. This process, if all goes well, will also erase the elemental's mind (if it has one), and replace it with an Archon's determined, millitaristic personality. Given the fact that it also encodes how to create magic items of masterwork status, preventing malfunction for an Archon's parent is not at all hard.

That said, you don't have to worry about 4E getting swamped by hordes of CE Archons. If the process does go wrong for some reason, it's quite possible for the elemental to retain it's original mind, resulting in a rather PO'd creature with all the powers of an Archon. Even if it goes right, there's nothing stopping the new Archon from seeing the error of his ways: In their 3.5 statted version of Fire Archons, WotC indicated that they are Often CE, meaning that their evil is purely cultural. So while your average Archon is a Proud Warrior Race Guy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProudWarriorRaceGuy) with no problems playing soccer with puppies, it's not all that hard, or even uncommon to find fed-up Defectors from Decadence (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefectorFromDecadence) who got tired of their fellows.

Tingel
2008-05-21, 01:15 PM
Lawful Good
(Astral Sea)
|
Good ----- Unaligned ----- Evil
(Feywild) (Prime Material) (Shadowfel)
|
Chaotic Evil
(Elemental Chaos)
This doesn't work. The Astral Sea is not Good, as the evil gods also live there. And the Feywild isn't Good either, being the home to the Formorians and a variety of malicious fey creatures. Both places are in itself neutral.

ShaggyMarco
2008-05-21, 01:16 PM
It seems clear to me that in 4ed, the following things are true:

Nonaligned: Your soul is not officially affiliated with any of the below cosmic forces. You are just a person who is looking out for your own best interests, trying to do the right thing whenever possible, but rarely seeking situations where you must struggle to do the right thing.

Cosmic Forces: If you belong to any of the following, you have made a decision to dedicate tour soul to one of the following ideologies that form the basis of all conflicts in all of the worlds beyond the Material Plane.

Good: You want others to be happy and comfortable. You value life, truth, and beauty. You put the needs of others before yourself. You feel all worlds would be better off if everyone was just nicer to each other.

Evil: You put yourself above others. You not only don't mind stepping on others to benefit yourself, but sometimes you leven like it. You place no value on the quality of life of others. You feel like every being must make for himself the best of his own circumstances--if that means stepping on others, fine. If that means being the strongest and never losing, fine. If that means making strong friends and serving them, fine.

Lawful: Dedicated to the unity of all things and fighting against entropy (the breakdown of all complex systems-cosmically, the universe). Dedicated to civilization. Allied with dieties. Civilization sometimes calls for sacrifice to work-you are willing to make that sacrifice. All of these ideas neccessitate that you value life, structure, and others and are therefore ALSO good.

Chaos: Dedicated to the destruction of all complex things. A servant of entropy. Allied with the primordials. You are okay with the extincition of all life, as life is a comlex system chaos desires to break down. If you are okay with this, then you ARE evil.

In fact, I feel like this systems makes Law vs. Chaos an even more interesting conflict.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 01:24 PM
... If you are okay with this, then you ARE evil.


Well said, sir.

There are a lot of valid interpretations of the new alignment system in the above thread, but this, perhaps, is the best one.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:27 PM
Actually, until we get some juicy word of god, those are as bad as any other.

Not to mention, That is plain wrong, since it is based on the fallacy of tying ethics to morals, when they are two distinct concepts.

Leliel
2008-05-21, 01:27 PM
-snip-

Well...We could go with that...

Except, oh yeah, DEATH IS NOT EVIL!

To say death is evil is akin to saying the laws of the universe are evil.

Extrapolating from this, Law must be evil, since it supports the natural cycle of entropy, while Chaos is good, since it rebels against that cycle.

And so on.

More than likely for WotC to go with the system that states that CE is no more evil than Evil, and the same for LG-Good.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 01:28 PM
Maybe I should have said it's the guess I like the best then?

Also, I don't think he said that death is evil. If you want to kill others for the sake of it, that would be evil. If you want to protect the world from those that would destroy it, well, that's pretty good.

I suppose on a cosmic scale no act is truly evil or good because the sun will go out, but that's not a very useful in-game philosophy, unless you want to play Nihilism the RPG.

Also, Azerian, I can tell from this and other threads that you are big into moral relativism, but again, this is not a particularly useful model for the typical D&D game. (For an encounter or campaign, sure it can be good to parse the issue, but moral relativism is not useful from a design standpoint, making attack keywords and such, to be clear).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:29 PM
Yep, should have said that from the beginning.

Tingel
2008-05-21, 01:32 PM
Not to mention, That is plain wrong, since it is based on the fallacy of tying ethics to morals, when they are two distinct concepts.
Calling "Law-Chaos" the morality axis and "Good-Evil" the ethics axis is bogus. You can say that Ethics is the science of Morality. Look the terms up. The Wizards of the Coast do not use them properly.

Both Ethics and Morality are concerned with the Good-Evil axis.

Leliel
2008-05-21, 01:33 PM
-Snip-

No offence to you personally. Sorry.

I just wanted to debate.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:34 PM
You got it all wrong. GOOD-EVIL is the morality axis. Where the heck did oyu get the idea it was the other way? Institutions are supposed to be ethic, but not necessarily moral. If you wanted examples, governments are mostly LN, but the Hyppocratic Oath is pure LG.

Tingel
2008-05-21, 01:38 PM
You got it all wrong. GOOD-EVIL is the morality axis. Where the heck did oyu get the idea it was the other way? Institutions are supposed to be ethic, but not necessarily moral. If you wanted examples, governments are mostly LN, but the Hyppocratic Oath is pure LG.

I see; apparently I confused "moral" and "ethical" in WotC's nomenclature. This is probably because their nomenclature is bogus, and the distinction between morality and ethics they use is made up. Ethics and morality are not two unrelated concepts. Again, I suggest you look the two terms up, but not in a WotC publication.

In the end, "moral" is just the Latin counterpart to the Greek "ethical".

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:41 PM
Sorry, but they are. Ethics is purely related to following your codes and instruction (Be they good, like the aforementioned Oath, or being bad, like obeying a superior and gunning down a town), morality is related to doing the right thing. One is subjective, the other one isn't.

Tingel
2008-05-21, 01:46 PM
Sorry, but they are. Ethics is purely related to following your codes and instruction (Be they good, like the aforementioned Oath, or being bad, like obeying a superior and gunning down a town), morality is related to doing the right thing. One is subjective, the other one isn't.
Where are you getting this stuff from?

Ethics is the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain. Depending on which philosopher you ask either both are relative or neither is. If you believe in "absolute moral truths" then you also believe that ethical discourse can find those absolute truths. If however you think that morality is subjective, then ethics are as well.

Your distinction between the two does not conform with their definitions.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:49 PM
Which has been done, in fact. Your point? The study is not the application.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 01:56 PM
... the definition of "ethics" is intrinsically tied to morals. And in fact they are synonyms for each other.


1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> bplural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>


But that is irrelevant. Until we know how WotC intends the alignments in 4e, we can't say for sure what each step means.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:58 PM
See, I use definition 2 C: A Guiding philosophy. Obeying that philosophy would be ethical, not doing so would be unethical.

Murdering could or could not be divorced from that philosophy, but it IS intrinsically evil.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 01:58 PM
Wait... so gunning down a town of civilians under orders could be called immoral, but NOT unethical? Stop and think for a second. Are you defending a position that you're pretty sure is wrong at this point? Are you just dissagreeing for the fun of it? Where are you getting your definitions from? You're starting to remind me of my friend back in middle school who would open a dictionary and then lie about what it said when he was called on being wrong about a word, just so he wouldn't appear wrong.

Argueing on the internet does strange things to people.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:00 PM
Wait... so gunning down a town of civilians under orders could be called immoral, but NOT unethical? Stop and think for a second. Are you defending a position that you're pretty sure is wrong at this point? Are you just dissagreeing for the fun of it? Where are you getting your definitions from? You're starting to remind me of my friend back in middle school who would open a dictionary and then lie about what it said when he was called on being wrong about a word, just so he wouldn't appear wrong.

Argueing on the internet does strange things to people.

If you do it obeying orders, and we go by definition 2 C, yes, completely so.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 02:02 PM
See, this is why the terms morality and ethical are thrown out the window. They are subjective.

In D&D terms (and back on topic)...

I think its going to come down to Lawful Good - Good (NG, CG) - Unaligned (LN, N, CN) - Evil (LE, NE) - Chaotic Evil

Where the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil represent the forces of Creation and Destruction... not a system of right and wrong.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:04 PM
See, this is why the terms morality and ethical are thrown out the window. They are subjective.

In D&D terms (and back on topic)...

I think its going to come down to Lawful Good - Good (NG, CG) - Unaligned (LN, N, CN) - Evil (LE, NE) - Chaotic Evil

Where the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil represent the forces of Creation and Destruction... not a system of right and wrong.

But then we fall into total subjectiveness again. WHICH is creation and WHICH destruction? Chaos is creative but entropic. Law is conservative and prone to stasis. No way to pick one.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 02:05 PM
If you do it obeying orders, and we go by definition 2 C, yes, completely so.

What if you're not obeying orders, but rather obeying your conscience, the guiding philosophy that killing is fun and therefore you should do it? By your analysis this too would be an application of ethics, even though it has nothing to do with a specific code or institution. The two words are synomyms.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 02:06 PM
No.

Creation seeks to make things and keep them.

Destruction destroys things.

No subjectivism there.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:07 PM
What if you're not obeying orders, but rather obeying your conscience, the guiding philosophy that killing is fun and therefore you should do it? By your analysis this too would be an application of ethics, even though it has nothing to do with a specific code or institution.

Indeed. It's your own philosophy, you follow it, thus it's ethical. You're understanding it quick.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-21, 02:07 PM
But that is irrelevant. Until we know how WotC intends the alignments in 4e, we can't say for sure what each step means.

Yeah, we're all pretty much stabbing in the dark on the alignment question. And getting way off the topic of archons.

Regarding them, I'm a bit disappointed the archons don't have any on-bloodied abilities, and the brute is pretty much lacking in anything besides its difficult ground aura and maul of icy pain. Then again, it's a brute, so I guess I should expect that. Soldier type enemies will likely make for more varying melee combatant. The hailsurge has a lot of spiffy powers though that make it a cool (hah) opponent to use. I'm not quite sure as to when a frost shield must be used. Is it before confirming the hit or can it be any time? It certainly makes for a nice "screw you" to a PC hitting it with a daily power by taking a big chunk out of the damage.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 02:09 PM
Here is the Ice Archon from the Dungeons of Dread D&D minis...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/icearchon.jpg

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:09 PM
No.

Creation seeks to make things and keep them.

Destruction destroys things.

No subjectivism there.

Yeah, but WHICH is destruction and WHICH is creation?

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 02:10 PM
But then we fall into total subjectiveness again. WHICH is creation and WHICH destruction? Chaos is creative but entropic. Law is conservative and prone to stasis. No way to pick one.

Lawfullness is akin to order in Sam's reading. Order creates civilization out of the wilderness. It is the creative force, not necesarily static. Chaos breaks down those creations, disolving them. It is a destructive force.



Indeed. It's your own philosophy, you follow it, thus it's ethical. You're understanding it quick.

Is it not also a moral choice, not just ethical? I'm obvioulsly not understanding it as quick as you think, because they seem the same to me.

Trog
2008-05-21, 02:11 PM
unless you want to play Nihilism the RPG.

ooooh... that sounds exhausting. [/El Dude-a-rino]

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 02:11 PM
Well, in my model lawful good is creation and chaotic evil is destruction.

The war between the gods and the primordials would put all of the gods on the side of Lawful Good and the Primordials on the side of Chaotic Evil... Primal Chaos is going to be Chaotic Evil.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:13 PM
Lawfullness is akin to order in Sam's reading. Order creates civilization out of the wilderness. It is the creative force, not necesarily static. Chaos breaks down those creations, disolving them. It is a destructive force.




Is it not also a moral choice, not just ethical? I'm obvioulsly not understanding it as quick as you think, because they seem the same to me.

Yes, it is, it's also a moral act, but it's the act that is immoral and ethical. But ethics and morality must be judged separately.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:14 PM
Well, in my model lawful good is creation and chaotic evil is destruction.

The war between the gods and the primordials would put all of the gods on the side of Lawful Good and the Primordials on the side of Chaotic Evil... Primal Chaos is going to be Chaotic Evil.

'Splain what the heck is Bane doing as one of the core gods, then.

Tingel
2008-05-21, 02:14 PM
But then we fall into total subjectiveness again. WHICH is creation and WHICH destruction? Chaos is creative but entropic. Law is conservative and prone to stasis. No way to pick one.
In the literal meaning, Chaos is everything but creative. It is only destructive, denoting the nothingness outside of the cosmos. The opposite of Chaos is Cosmos, an orderly universe allowing life, reason and development. The concept of "Cosmos" can also be called Order, or Law.

I know that Chaos and Order are often depicted differently in fantasy fiction, but that is only a rather primitive trope. What is often called "Chaos" is simply a highly complex Order. Also, the idea that Order necessarily brings stagnation is - while old - wrong as well. Change can be very orderly. All orderly systems that are a function of time are systems of change. Physical laws describe the lawful, orderly cosmos, and yet they mainly describe movement and change.

Only Law allows for meaningful change and development. Chaos does not.


That being said, I realize that D&D always used more "tropical" definitions of Law and Chaos, so what I said above does not necessarily apply to 4th edition. It would show nicely why Law is associated with Good and Chaos with Evil, though.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 02:15 PM
Yes, it is, it's also a moral act, but it's the act that is immoral and ethical. But ethics and morality must be judged separately.

The act is not immoral and ethical. it is immoral and unethical. The confusion is that both are subjective, but not in D&D which as an objective moral system.

And there we have it. Your very narrow definition of ethics which diferentiates it in some way from morals is not actually applicable to the D&D alignment system, and is thus a red herring and not useful in our discussion.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 02:18 PM
'Splain what the heck is Bane doing as one of the core gods, then.

Instead of only attacking other people's ideas... try offering ideas of your own. Constructive debates are much more appealing than flame wars.

As to why Bane is a core god... maybe the evil gods only participated in the "Godwar" because they wanted power... not destruction. Primordial Chaos wants nothingness. Nothingness leaves a lot to be desired.

Why don't you explain why Bane is a core god, the alignment system and how you interpret it. Don't get into petty things like "WotC screwed it up!" or "They don't get it"... because, honestly, we're just giving our own thoughts. None of us know.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:19 PM
And there we have it. Your very narrow definition of ethics which diferentiates it in some way from morals is not actually applicable to the D&D alignment system, and is thus a red herring and not useful in our discussion.

:smallamused:

Really? Then why does LE exist? Or CG?

D&D is the perfect place to start applying the "separatist", for lack of a better word, view of morals and ethics.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-21, 02:19 PM
:smallamused:

Really? Then why does LE exist? Or CG?


It doesn't. Not anymore.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 02:21 PM
Instead of only attacking other people's ideas... try offering ideas of your own. Constructive debates are much more appealing than flame wars.

As to why Bane is a core god... maybe the evil gods only participated in the "Godwar" because they wanted power... not destruction. Primordial Chaos wants nothingness. Nothingness leaves a lot to be desired.

Why don't you explain why Bane is a core god, the alignment system and how you interpret it. Don't get into petty things like "WotC screwed it up!" or "They don't get it"... because, honestly, we're just giving our own thoughts. None of us know.

Simple. In order: Enemy mine, a separate (Or so it is claimed) view of ethics and morals, and Intent and Act matters in equal measure.

Izzat good? Or do I need to expand?

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-21, 02:22 PM
:smallamused:

Really? Then why does LE exist? Or CG?

D&D is the perfect place to start applying the "separatist", for lack of a better word, view of morals and ethics.

Hm, not quite, because in 4e chaos is always also evil and lawful is always also good. It's not a moralXethics axis like in 3e (which we already established was using the word incorrectly for in-game reasons, something we have not seen evidence for in 4e yet), it is merely 5 different but related alignments.

ShaggyMarco
2008-05-22, 07:07 AM
The main point I was trying to make is that alignments seem-pretty clearly-to no longer just represent a character's general moral and/or ethical code. 4th ed is a much bigger shift, alignment-wise, than just dropping 4 alignments. We used to have Alignment. Now we have 4lignment.

We need a new lexicon:

LAW: A 3rd ed term indicating a character tends to follow moral/societal codes

L4W: A 4th ed term indicating a character is allied with the fundemental forces of creation and preservation of order.

CHAOS: A 3rd ed term indicating a character does not like to be pinned down by sctrict social/moral codes.

CH4OS: A 4th ed term indicating a character is allied with the fundemental forces of entropy and destruction of all that is.

This isn't mere random guesswork or my own personal desires projected on this rule-set either, so saying it doesn't matter until we see a book isn't strictly accurate. No, I don't KNOW--but I've seen the character sheets, read all of the different released monster flavor text, and even gleaned a bit from the direction WoTC was heading with their later 3rd ed products.

The Archons are what led me to this distinction. They are definitely beings of LAW. But, since they serve the Primordials: the 4th ed forces of entropy and destruction-they are beings of CH4OS.

edit: This new system doesn't seem quite so nice and neat as the 3x3, however, I suspect, for story-telling purposes, it will be more useful. Yes, you can choose to be aligned with one of the GREATER FORCES, but you don't have to be. It is a big decision not easily or lightly entered into.

Indon
2008-05-22, 07:48 AM
When I run a 4'th edition game, I'm probably going to remake a lot of the cosmology anyway. Archons look like just another aspect I'll tweak, though I might keep the gods vs. primordials concept.

EvilElitest
2008-05-22, 10:11 AM
WotC could give EE the best **** ever ****** and he would still ***** it was ****ing *********itude.


even more so because it's taking a page of EE's book..
I'm sorry, i can't hear you, the rules are in the way



External Baggage
Each thread should exist in a vacuum, free from outside influences—especially those outside of these boards. What this means is that you can't carry over anger from a debate in another thread into a new discussion, and you can't harass anyone over anything they did in another thread, on another website's board, or in real life. If you can't check your baggage at the door, you'll end up earning an Infraction.

So while i don't have time to actually read the article, i will defend my self

I don't hate everything WotC does, and i don't think everything single thing in 4E is utter crap. I do however, find a lot to criticize, including in 3E. now if any 4E people recall, i was actually arguing for a new edition when 4E was first announced, because 3E was broken as hell.

Now if you want to find complaint with what i say, fine, but actually base it on something. Calling me a hater is cowardly, and time wasting, and only makes your own points seem like the words of a fanboy
from
EE

Calemyr
2008-05-22, 10:38 AM
While I would miss the lost alignments, I must say that it's a rather promising setup if it's played right.

Like before, 95% of the world is unaligned (or neutral), and just go from day to day just trying to get by without giving a thought to the greater balance or pretty much anything outside of their own routine. Then you've got the good guys and bad guys who add color to society with their constant conflict.

Good and evil are mundane, everyday heroes and villains who strive for their agendas but are still focused solely on the most minute fraction of creation. The good guys want to protect this city, the bad guys want to rule this country, the good guys want to save this planet, the bad guys want to draw every ounce of riches from this plane. No matter how big the scope of their ambitions, good and evil are still limited because their perspective is self centered. They think in terms of the here and now and base their actions upon that.

Lawful good and chaotic evil, on the other hand, are the epic heroes and villains that people tell stories around the fire about. Their agendas expand far beyond the here and now and hold the infinity of space and the eternity of time within them. These are the big picture guys who play for the big stakes. Good and evil mean little when the game will decide between the preservation of existence and utter annihilation.

The interesting thing is that this means that evil becomes a playable alignment to a larger degree. On the small scale (low levels), evil would be the natural enemy of the good guys, but on the larger scale, they quickly become grudging allies, as existence has to... well... exist for them to rule it. I also like the new importance law and chaos have on this structure, where they used to be minor footnotes in a character sheet that had little impact on the game.

Anyway, It certainly looks stupid until you stop thinking of the axis as political. Like I said, however, this could be quite cool if it's handled right.

Actually, this really works best in the story of the Order of the Stick.
1) You've got the gods, both good and evil (Thor and Loki) on one side, and the Snarl on the other.
2) Then you have the Order (largely good) and Team Evil playing off each other.
2a) At first the Order wasn't thinking in terms of scribbles of the apocalypse threatening to skewer the gods and unmake existence, as they only wanted to kick a lich's boney butt and loot his dungeon. When they learn of the Snarl, however, the lawful good leader of the party makes stopping that the priority.
2b) Team Evil, on the other hand, does not want to free the Snarl and destroy everything, they just want the power they think they can get out of it, which is the new Evil.
3) Redcloak is no longer Lawful Evil, he's Evil with a responsible personality. Xycon is no longer Chaotic Evil, he's Evil with little to no sense of responsibility at all. The Snarl is the only true Chaotic Evil player in the story so far, from a 4e perspective.

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-23, 05:09 AM
That actually means you could have a Good (not LG) Paladin. They're fighting for Society and Order and Helping People and Cute Fluffy Puppies, and although they would obviously want the universe to keep existing, a lot of (3e) Paladins would be more concerned with directly helping people.

Obviously you could have the LG Paladin fighting for the Cosmic Existence too, but they don't have to.

Also, I have a horrible feeling that I spawned this alignment thread...